CHAPTER XVI
GIVING EVERY MAN A REASON 

Another class of objections actually does not apply to the modern Oneness Movement at all.  The majority of Dr. Boyd's objections fall into this category.  These arguments have little to do with our doctrine.  They are all leveled against the modalistic teachings of Sabellius and Praxeas of the second century.  Thus we constantly hear Dr. Boyd characterizing our doctrine as role-playing, masks, illusions, performances, etc.  Our doctrine is "God in Christ," not "God in masks."  The Articles of Faith of the UPCI contains no references to God "playing roles" or "wearing masks."  Neither does the Creed and Discipline of the P.A.W. contain such statements!  Dr. Boyd's line of reasoning may apply (and I say "may apply") to ancient Modalism.  However even in that instance it is doubtful.  We do not have any of the writings of Sabellius or Praxeas to determine what they actually taught.  They were all destroyed.  All that we have to rely on is what their Trinitarian opponents accused them of teaching.  And we know how unreliable that can be!  The true teachings of the second century Modalists have no doubt been greatly distorted by their detractors.  We feel if their actual writing could be examined, they would probably show a theologically correct view of the godhead.  The followers of Sabellius and Praxeas were undoubtedly the surviving spiritual remnant of the Early Apostolic Church and doctrine.  That is why we do not hesitate to claim spiritual kinship with them; for there is enough evidence, even in the distorted charges of their enemies, to recognize that they possessed the truth.  And it is against these gross caricatures of Ancient Modalism that Dr. Boyd, and others, direct most of their fire power, while at the same time claiming to be refuting modern day Oneness.  In essence they just repeat the arguments of the ancient Trinitarian forgers!  If I may borrow Dr. Boyd's own words, written against us, and apply it to them, for it fits them much better:
 

"They present a Caricature.  Hence these writings simply have the effect of tearing down a straw man in order to convince their uninformed readers about the truth of their own position" (Boyd., p. 66).

"Don't conclude too quickly!  I have presented above some of the most frequently raised objections to the doctrine of the Trinity stated by Oneness adherents.  To uninformed Trinitarians who have not been prepared for them, they can initially be devastating...These arguments have successfully converted significant numbers of professed trinitarians... to Oneness Pentecostalism.  To those who find these arguments persuasive, may I urge you to not accept them uncritically.  Don't conclude in favor of Oneness Pentecostalism too quickly or too easily" (Boyd, p.48).

"In other words, in Oneness Theology the three 'Temporary' roles of God do not arise out of God's essential eternal being.  God 'plays' Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  But in His heart of hearts - whoever he is - he is not these three." (Boyd, p. 179).

We know what God looks like because Christ said:

"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:10).

"I have not spoken of myself: but the Father which sent me" (John 12:49).

"As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you." (John 15:9)

"He that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me" (John 13:20).

"If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him..." (John 14:7).

"The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10).

"God is a Spirit" (John 4:24).

"I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

Whatever we want to know about God is fully demonstrated in Christ.  And He is no "temporary role" for "in Him dwelleth (permanently resides - Greek) all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).
 

Due to their "Greek Olympics" in which they re-translate out of existence all references to Jesus as "the only begotten Son of God," they are left with "something like" a Father and "something like" a Son.  And all the dialogue ("Father-Son language") in the Gospels, which we thought was between a real Father and Son, is one big "analogical" performance.  Role playing if you please!
 

"Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God" (I John 5:5).

"This air of 'transient illusion' comes out especially in the Christology of Oneness Theology" (Boyd p. 180).

"Everything that is said  about the personal interaction of the Father and the Son, though it clearly appears to be indicative of a personal relationship, is 'really' about Jesus interacting with Himself.  hence ...the 'dialogue' is illusionary.  It is 'sustained by a single impersonator'' " (p. 181).

The fact that this same God the Father is also incarnate in His Son, that He dwells in His Son, does not alter in any way the above stated facts.  The Bible Truth that God was in Christ does not in any way negate the possibility of real communication between Christ and His Father.  Why should it?  In fact, as we shall see it is only with a  Oneness revelation that this dialogue makes sense at all.

For there to be real and meaningful conversation, two minds and two wills are required.  One mind must think and will to speak; the other must think to respond, and will to answer.  Without this you truly have a ventriloquist illusion.  In Oneness, the Father, who possesses divine mind and will, dialogues with His Son, who has a human mind and will.  That is why Christ could pray "not my will, but thine be done."  (Mark 14:36).  Christ also testified that communication with His Father was continually going on within him (John 11:42).  This communication was openly verbalized on occasions, not because it was necessary for Christ, but for our benefit.  For example read the account where Christ prays out loud at Lazarus' tomb:  What does He say concerning this?

"Father I thank thee that thou hast heard me.  And I know that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 11:41-42).

"Jesus answered and said: This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes."  (John 12:30).

"...Hence we ought not be surprised to find Jesus referring to the Father and to the Holy Spirit as dwelling within Himself. 'For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form' (Col. 2:9)" (Boyd, p.64).

The Neo-Trinitarians, like their Classical Trinitarian predecessors, make much of the "divine conversations" that took place amongst the members of the Trinity in eternity past.  This is part of their "eternal fellowship" doctrine.  The Classical Trinitarians at least admitted the they had three real persons, three individuals with three minds and wills (Brumback p. 55).  Real fellowship, love, communication could take place among their three separate gods.  But the Neo-Trinitarians want their "cake and eat it too."  They claim that the idea of three individuals with three minds, and three wills is all a "misunderstanding" (Boyd, p. 64,170).  God is, they claim, only One Spirit, with one mind, and one consciousness, not three separate individuals (178).  Dr. Boyd says his Trinity exists in three personal ways (178), three fashions (63), or three spheres (176); certainly not three separate persons.  However this presents a problem for them, that is larger than big!  For how, pray tell, does one "way" talk to another "way"? How does one "fashion" socialize with another "fashion"?  This is quite "illusionary."  If this is bad, its about to get worse.
 

"...we must postulate something like 'I-Thou' relationship within the Godhead.  For only if there is an 'I' and a 'Thou', a genuine sense of otherness within God, can there be the kind of interpersonal relationality and love that a God who eternally 'does what is best' would have."

"Perhaps the most tragic implication of reducing the Father/Son personal distinction to a mere distinction of natures (or even outright illusion) is that it completely undermines the genuineness of the Father's personal love for the Son and the Son's personal love for the Father..." (Boyd, p. 183).

On page 186, Dr. Boyd gives us a personal incident of how he felt as Father, the pain he experienced, when he saw his daughter injured.  He uses this to illustrate the love between the Father and the Son.  He has a problem though.  He literally "begat" his daughter, so there is a real parent-child bonding and love.  But in his trinity the Father's love is that it is "something like a perfectly loving Parent" (p. 186).  You see it is "like that of a Father and Son" but it isn't.

What is so difficult for Dr. Boyd and the other Neo-Trinitarians to understand?  The one true infinite God, who is Spirit and omnipotent, begat through means of a Virgin Birth, a Son, who was a perfect sinless Man, the Saviour of the world.  What is so difficult about believing that God could love His Son, truly love him; and that the Son could reciprocate this love, truly return it?  The fact that the one true God also dwells in His Son, as Dr. Boyd himself admits, does not alter or abrogate this loving relationship.  The fact that the Father also serves as the divine nature resident in the flesh of his Son, does not impede the love of one to the other.  Indeed it heightens it!  See John 16:32.  In fact because of this incarnation it is impossible for us to love the Son apart from the Father:
 

"...and everyone that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him" (I John 5:1).

He states the Trinity was involved in a loving relationship from all eternity; and what we witnessed in the incarnation showed us what had been going on between the Father and Son in eternity past.
 

"How they love in time has always been taken by the church to be a true revelation of how they love in eternity" (p. 189).

"From eternity to eternity, God is love, passionate love, unconditional love, perfect love!  For orthodox trinitarianism, God's innermost being is the totally interpenetrating loving union of the three 'persons' of the Trinity" (p. 189).

We are face to face with the same old Boydian dilemma.  True love can only exist between two individuals, two minds or centers of consciousness.  And in Boyd's "trinity" there is supposed to be only one mind, one will and centre of consciousness (though plenty of modes, spheres, fashions and ways!).  Love requires an "I - Thou" relationship, as he has previously taught us.  And we agree.  But for an "I - Thou" relationship to exist there must be two minds - one for "I" and one for "Thou" (or shall I say "one for me and one for thee!")  or at the minimum two separate wills are required.  But the "New Trinity" of Boyd and friends is quite deficient in this area, having only "one mind" and "one will."  The old Classic Trinitarians had no problem here, for they had plenty of separate minds and wills to go around!

Dr. Boyd seeks to extricate himself from this dilemma by involving himself in a massive and fatal contradiction.  He purposes that the love going on in the Trinity is best understood by picturing the Trinity as a "single human person" (see Boyd, p. 175).  Let's see if we got it straight:  "one person"!  He actually put it in print:
 

"Is describing God as 'one person' the same as describing Him as an 'absolute unity'?  I think not, for the unity of a person is, in fact a relational unity" (p. 175).

"The analogy that has been most frequently employed for understanding the Trinity throughout church history has been one that likens the Trinity to the inner constitution of a single human person" (p. 175).

What a great news all this business about "multiplicity of selves" will be for the man in solitary confinement, when he realizes that he is not actually alone, but that his "self" is loving and talking to it's "own self image"!  Or how socially pleasing is it for the recluse to realize he is not without fellowship because his "intellect" is busy talking to his "will."  No one should ever worry about not being loved, for one "aspect" of our "multiplicity of selves" is always ready to love another aspect!  And Dr. Boyd finally concludes on page 176 that this analogy drawn from the one human person is "much better suited to clarify the Trinitarian understanding of God than it is the Oneness understanding"  Amen!  The whole thing reminds me of a poem I read once:
 

"I gave a little party this afternoon at three,
Twas very small, three guests in all
Just I, myself and me.
Myself ate up all the sandwiches
While I drank up the tea
And it was I who ate the pie
And passed the cake to me."

"It requires that we view Jesus as switching back and forth between his supposed identities of Father and Son -- and doing so between sentences" (p. 88).

"The multipersonality Jesus again (we are to believe) switches voices in the middle of a sentence." (p. 92).

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 1:17)

"For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things..." (John 5:20).

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12)

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God,..."  (John 7:17).

"And they shall look upon  me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son..."

I know of a scholar, a Trinitarian, who teaches that when Christ used the term "we" and "our" in John 3:11 he was speaking from both his natures simultaneously!  My library is filled with books by Trinitarians which attempt to sort out the statements Christ made as a "man," from those he made as "God."  As the noted Trinitarian scholar John Walvoord says in his book, "Jesus Christ our Lord" :
 

"It seems possible to conclude  that he had both a divine and human self consciousness, that these were never in conflict, and that Christ sometimes thought, spoke, and acted from the divine self consciousness and at other times from the human" (Walvoord, p. 118).

"Jesus saith unto them, 'I am'...As soon then as he had said unto them, 'I am', they went backward, and fell to the ground." (John 18:5-6 Margin)

"Never man spake like this man."  (John 7:46).

"It seems legitimate to conclude then, that Jesus in the incarnation was one person with two different kinds of consciousness.  He could say 'I and the Father are One' (John 10:30), 'Before Abraham was born, I am' (John 8:58), and 'I a, the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14:6).  In his human consciousness Jesus could make such statements as 'I am thirsty' (John 19:28)" (p. 204).

On page 76 and 77 Dr. Boyd outlines his case.  Jesus said that his ministry had been authenticated by two witnesses, namely himself and his Father (John 8:16-18).  This is in accordance with Jewish Law that requires two individual testimonies to make a judgment binding.  Therefore, the Father and Son must be two persons.

However, the Jewish Law is talking about two human beings (Num. 35:30); something that does not exactly apply to the Trinity or the Oneness.  For in neither doctrine are you dealing with two human "persons."  But the essence of the Mosaic Law is what Christ is using, the spirit of it, rather than the letter.  God the Father, the Almighty God of Israel, who was now in incarnate in Christ, bore witness by the miracles he performed through Christ.  And Jesus Christ -- the Man, the Son who was born of Mary, also bore witness through his sinless life, and infallible teachings.  In the Oneness therefore, we have two minds or centers of consciousness, one divine and the other human, that bore witness to Christ's ministry.  This is the equivalent of what Moses' Law required. The fact that the first witness, the Father, dwells within the Son, the Second Witness, has no negative bearing on the case at all.  For the residence of a witness does not affect his testimony! And besides, even Neo-Trinitarians admit the Father fully dwells in the Son.
 

Now lets take that to court and see how it stands.

Robert Bowman says:
 

"One cannot go into any court of law and say, 'I am two witnesses to the crime - my body testifies and my soul testifies'" (as quoted in Boyd, p. 77).

"In fact over 50 times the juxtapositioning of the Father and Jesus the Son is rendered explicit within the very same verse"

Now references to the Father and the Son, especially as typified in the salutations, are theologically neutral.  The Trinitarians see it as  a reference to the First Person of the Trinity and the Second Person.  Arians see it as a reference to the one true God and his created Son.  Oneness adherents see it as a reference to the one true God, the Father, and to the Son in whom he dwelt, our Lord Jesus Christ.  I have used these very salutations in personal letters that I have written to others.  To speak of the Father and Son "juxtapositioned" in the same sentence in no way negates the fact that the Father is also in the Son, and that in Christ we have both.  Paul, who wrote most of the salutations, also stressed the fact that God was in Christ.  (See 1 Thessalonians 5:18, 2 Corinthians 12:19, Phil. 3:14, 2 Cor. 5:19, Col. 2:9).  It certainly presented no problem for the Apostle John.  For after the above quoted salutation in 2 John 3, we hear him saying in the same epistle:

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.  He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son"  (2 John 9).

"Grace and peace be unto you from the first and second persons of the Triune God."

The same thing applies to the threefold references scattered throughout the New Testament to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  These no more prove three persons in the Godhead, than do the five titles given to Christ in Isaiah 9:6 prove five persons in the Son-head!  For that matter we read of "God and our Father" (Gal. 1:4), and the "mystery of God and of the Father" (Col. 2:2).  Are we to assume two persons are meant?

We are very comfortable reading about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  We have always believed in a God who has "revealed himself as Father, through His Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit by emanation" (Articles of Faith of the UPCI.).

Dr. Boyd's own explanation of the threefold references seem good to me.  He says:

"It is a way of saying 'God/God/God' but in a richer and more felicitous manner" (p. 58);

"Heap big thunder, heap big wind, - no rain!"
 

"How can he go to the Father, if He is the Father!"

"The distinction continues on, and becomes even more explicit, when we hear the Jesus of John's Gospel immediately continue on to say...'I am going to the Father'..." (Boyd, p. 74).

"wherever and however God exists -- as Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit -- all of God exists.  From this it follows that whatever person of the Godhead one is referring to, the other two are fully present" (p. 64).

"And indeed...each person completely dwells within the other two" (p. 171).

Well now, according to what was just expounded as standard Trinitarianism, wherever the Son is, the Father is also fully present, and  the Father completely dwells within the Son, "interpenetrates" him in a loving union, and is "inseparable" from him.  Then how do they explain that the Son has to go to the Father?  You can't get any closer than "interpenetration"!  The fact is they don't even dare to attempt an explanation!  They use this verse against us as  one would a time bomb.  They bring it forward, set it in place, and then run for cover, for they certainly don't want to be there when it goes off!  In summary, if John 16:28 is a problem for anyone, its a problem for Trinitarians!
 

Let us take the whole context.  Jesus said

"I came forth from the Father and am come into the world: again I leave the world and go to the Father" (John 16:28).

"He was come from God, and went to God" (John 13:3).

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion of a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death" (Philip 2:7-8).

"ascended that he might fill all things" (Eph. 4:10).

"Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:23).

"For the Spirit was not yet, for Christ was not yet glorified" (John 7:39, margin).

"the last Adam (Christ) was made a quickening Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).

It should not surprise us that Jesus used the verb "go" in the sense of changing office, rather than geographical travel.  We do the very same thing,.  We talk about a successful man "going to the top of his company."  We surely don't mean he rode the elevator to the twentieth floor!  Or when we say a bright student is "going to the head of his class," we don't mean he's going to run up the chalkboard!  It all indicates a change of office or position, for the better.  One humble preacher when asked to explain the verse that say, "Jesus came from God and went to God," simply responded:

"That's easy, Jesus is God, comin' and goin!"

"Jesus emphatically does not here (or anywhere) say 'I am the Father'" (p. 75).

"Note that Jesus does not here (or anywhere) say 'I am the Father'" (p. 74).

"If Jesus was trying so hard to do this, why didn't he simply do it?" (p. 74).

"But why , one must ask, is the New Testament so much less clear on this score?" (P. 70).

"opaqueness of the teaching concerning the 'Fatherhood' of Christ..." (p. 70).

"Why is the supposed fact that Jesus was his own Father so secretively hidden?..." (p. 70).

"These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak to you in proverbs (parables, margin)  but I will show you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25).

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.   Luke 10:22

Now the question might arise, why didn't Jesus teach it "outright" and "plain" like Dr. Boyd thinks it should have been, if it were true?

First of all, the Master doesn't need Dr. Boyd's advice on this point or any other.  Christ's motives are not for us to judge.  But I might suggest several reasons why the doctrine of the Fatherhood in Christ was hidden to an extent.  Of course, we must always bear in mind the main reason -- "it seemed good to the Father" to do so.  That ought to be enough for anyone! Also it was a controversial doctrine that prompted extreme reaction among the Jews when he mentioned it (John 8:19-20; John 8:58-59; John 10:30-31).  Jesus said: "I and my Father are one."  The the Jews took up stones again to stone him" (John 10:30).  Therefore Jesus spoke of the Father in "parables" to them (John 16:25).  It was not given to those stony hearts to know this great truth (stony hearts will have a problem with it!)

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.  (Matt 13:11-12).

Christ preferred to give them the evidence through his life, ministry and teachings and let them draw the conclusion and make the confession.  His parabolic statements about the Father grew clearer toward the end of his ministry as John 14 shows us.  Even then they were not grasping it, for Philip was still asking unenlightened questions like, "Sow us the Father."  Jesus' answer to Him is tinged with a slight rebuke, for he says: "Have I been so long with you and yet thou hast not known me Philip?  He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, show the Father?" (John 14:7-9).  He goes on, giving ever more light on the subject:

"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?  The words I speak unto you, I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14:10).

"In a sense of course, the verses do imply that Jesus is the manifestation or 'embodiment' of the Father."  (p. 73).

"The main intent of John 14:7-10 is to assure us that 'the Father' is not a different 'God' than the God revealed in Christ.  One does not, and cannot, look someplace else to 'see' and 'know' God the Father ...For just this reason, 'picturing' the Father (and/or Spirit) alongside Jesus, a sort of horizontal tri-embodied Trinity -- is prohibited..." (74-75).

"Christ is the one who is at the Father's side and the one through whom we must go to get to the Father, but He is Himself not the Father."

It would be best if their teachings became "opaque," better still, invisible!  And remain that way!
 

"As I have already pointed out, to affirm with Scripture that 'the Word became Flesh' either means that what the man Jesus experiences, God experiences -- or it means nothing at all."

"Either God became a man or he did not; if he did then everything that the man Jesus does, God does" (p. 65).

"...what Jesus endured on the cross, God himself endured... God could truly humble himself in order to become a real full human being -- he did not just robe himself in flesh -- while at the same time remaining the transcendent Father in heaven" (p. 188).

"... the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.. but he spake of the temple of His body" (John 2:19-21).

"The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the words," Christ said in John 14:10.

I hope this finally puts an end to these "whisperings and swellings" (2 Cor. 12:20).

We will now proceed to some of the more "standard" objections that have been raised against Oneness over the years.  While the preceding objections were unique for the most part to Neo-Trinitarianism, the following ones are used by both Classic and Neo-Trinitarians.  They have been answered often in the past, and answered well.  However, in order to provide a full response for "the hope that lieth within us" we will revisit these questions and answer them at this time.
 

By comparing the use of "us" in other passages we can readily see to whom God was speaking.  For in each case angels, either Cherubim or Seraphim were present.

In Genesis 1:26 we know angels were there because the book of Job says that the "morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (Job 38:7).  And this occurred during the Creation. (See Job 38:4-6).

In Genesis 3:22 God says:  "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."  The context immediately realizes the presence of Angels, Cherubims in this case:

"He placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim..." (Gen. 3:24).

In Genesis 11:7, God goes down to inspect a city, namely Babel, and the phrase "us" occurs in connection with this:

"Let us go down, and there confound their language"

The final instance of the use of "us" occurs in Isaiah's vision of God's throne (in which One, not three were seated thereon!)  he hears God saying:  Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"  (Isa. 6:8).  The angles, to whom God is obviously referring, are mentioned in verses 2 and 6.  They are Seraphims, one of the classes of angelic host.

So we have seen that in every case in which "us" is used, angels are mentioned either directly or indirectly.  Would it not be more logical, as well as scriptural, to believe God was talking to them instead of postulating two additional "divine persons" in the Godhead?
 

"The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10).

What Trinitarians want, and cannot get, is a scene in which the Father appears alongside the Son and points to Him and says, "This is my beloved Son."  They will have to go to Mormonism and consult Joseph Smith's visions, so-called, if they wish that kind of proof.  It's just not in the Bible.

While Trinitarians are busy trying to turn "voices" and "doves" into substantive persons they miss the message that the voice announced.  The divine Spirit said: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (Matt 3:17).  God was actually declaring that He was in the beloved Son, and well pleased.  Paul so interpreted it, for he wrote: "For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell" (Col. 1:19).  And this of course is the "fullness of the Godhead" (Col. 2:9).

The descent of the dove was a special sign to John the Baptist whereby he could identify the Messiah who would baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire (John 1:32-33).  A dove is not a person.

So what we have at Jordan, as anyone can see, is one Person in the water, and a manifested voice and a symbolic dove.  One Person, and one person only.  If we are going to use every instance of God creating a manifestation and turn it into a divine person we cannot stop at three.  For God manifested Himself in a cloud, a Pillar of Fire, A Still Small Voice, A Burning Bush, a wheel in a wheel and so forth.  Its going to get very crowded!
 

"The Godhead is 'Spirit' (John 4:24) and as Spirit has no likeness to matter..."

"The hand is mentioned some 600 times in the Old Testament, often symbolically  or in idiomatic expressions, frequently serving as a symbol of power or ability.  For example, the 'hand  of God' indicates  both sovereignty and divine action"  (The Revell Bible Dictionary, Fleming H. Revell Co; 1990, p. 465).

So Jesus being "at the right hand of God" cannot be taken literally, for God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and a "spirit" hath not flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).  And without "flesh and bone" you cannot have a hand (right or left).  So what does "seated at the right hand of God" mean?  It means Christ now has all power and sovereignty.  As a result of his resurrection, in which God took up permanent residence in the glorified Temple of Christ, our Lord possesses all power and authority.  "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."  (Matt. 28:18).

Christ Himself defined the "right hand" as meaning precisely that:

"Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:64).

This is later described as simply "coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:30), omitting the mention of "right hand" altogether.
 

Now after 80 years, Trinitarians are finally "seeing the light" on this question.  Dr. Boyd states:

"When the one true God is referred to as Elohim, however, the corresponding verbs are always singular ... Hence it is easiest and best to understand plural of Elohim when referenced to Yahweh as denoting a plural of majesty."  (Boyd, p. 47).

To illustrate the point, I quote Dr. Boyd's correct (for once) interpretation of this question:

"A final word must be said concerning how it is that Jesus (and others) can refer to the Father as His God (John 20:17; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; Rev. 1:6).  On the face of it, the traditional trinitarian answer to this differs little from the answer Oneness believers would themselves give: namely, it is because of Christ's Incarnation, because of the fact that he was a full human being, that he could not only refer to the Father as his God, but also explicitly say that the Father was greater than he (John 14:28).  It was, moreover for the same reason that the Son had to continually pray to God as any human must pray (Mark 1:35; 14:35; etc.)."

"and among these three persons none is before or after another, none is greater or less than  another."

Far from contradicting the Oneness Message, Christ's statement as to the Father being greater, actually supports it.  For it is axiomatic to Oneness that the Son is "lesser," being a human.  That is why the Son  said: "I can of mine own self do nothing" (John 5:30).  And it was as the human Son that Christ said: "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and "My Father which gave them me is greater than all" (John 10:29).  But at the same time, it is this Father, who is Greater than all," who dwells incarnate  in the Son.  For Christ said: "The Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14:10).  And that is why immediately after Christ stated that the Father was "greater than all" he proceeded to say: "I an my Father are one" (John 10:30), and "the Father is in me..." (John 10:38).  When one realizes that Christ's divinity is not derived from his human nature as "Son,"  but from his divine nature as "Father," then there is no difficulty in the text at all!